Expecting your dline to 1) engage the offensive lineman, 2) control the offensive lineman, 3) figure out the play, 4) react accordingly is WAY WAY different and more difficult than 1) slanting into a gap trying to get into the backfield immediately at the snap.

We could all argue until we're blue in the face but the bottom line is that we've got to see how our Cowboys DLinemen perform in this new slanting/1 gap system.

Expecting your dline to 1) engage the offensive lineman, 2) control the offensive lineman, 3) figure out the play, 4) react accordingly is WAY WAY different and more difficult than 1) slanting into a gap trying to get into the backfield immediately at the snap.

We could all argue until we're blue in the face but the bottom line is that we've got to see how our Cowboys DLinemen perform in this new slanting/1 gap system.

I always love to see when posters are painfully reluctant to agree with me. Not saying you are, but I've seen the "I hate to say it, but I have to agree with theogt here" a time or two.

Expecting your dline to 1) engage the offensive lineman, 2) control the offensive lineman, 3) figure out the play, 4) react accordingly is WAY WAY different and more difficult than 1) slanting into a gap trying to get into the backfield immediately at the snap.

We could all argue until we're blue in the face but the bottom line is that we've got to see how our Cowboys DLinemen perform in this new slanting/1 gap system.

All systems have two-gap responsibilities written in.

All players at some point or another have to react from a run responsibility, to a pass responsibility.

The extent to which they have to do so, in evaluating how well they do it, is irrelevent. It is a strawman, and one theo wasn't even qualified to make. So...double something.

You can play a one-gap system your whole life and have to react to run vs. pass. That was Alexander's point in talking about how poorly our players make that shift. Theo's just off in never-never land making auxillary-irrelevent-unqualified statements, and suggesting that there isn't a player in the world who makes that adjustment well.

All players at some point or another have to react from a run responsibility, to a pass responsibility.

The extent to which they have to do so, in evaluating how well they do it, is irrelevent. It is a strawman, and one theo wasn't even qualified to make. So...double something.

You can play a one-gap system your whole life and have to react to run vs. pass. That was Alexander's point in talking about how poorly our players make that shift. Theo's just off in never-never land making auxillary-irrelevent-unqualified statements, and suggesting that there isn't a player in the world who makes that adjustment well.

Let's make this very, very simple.

1. Some players may appear successful at the transition from run to pass.

2. Success at transitioning from run to pass is dependent upon the gap scheme played.

3. Comparing one player's overall success at transitioning from run to pass to another player's overall success is, therefore, dependent upon the gap scheme that each player plays in.

4. Bill Parcells and Bill Belicheck do not run the same scheme.

5. Therefore, comparing a Parcells player's overall success at transitioning from run to pass to a Belicheck player's overall success at transitioning is not helpful.

A five year old could follow this argument.

If your point is that Parcells and Belicheck run the same scheme and that I'm not qualified to say that they don't, then surely you see the fallacy in that statement.

If your point is that we already know which players transition from run to pass in a 2-gap assignment better than other players, I'd like to know what qualifies you or anyone else to make that statement.

All systems have two-gap responsibilities written in.
All players at some point or another have to react from a run responsibility, to a pass responsibility.

The extent to which they have to do so, in evaluating how well they do it, is irrelevent. It is a strawman, and one theo wasn't even qualified to make. So...double something.

You can play a one-gap system your whole life and have to react to run vs. pass. That was Alexander's point in talking about how poorly our players make that shift. Theo's just off in never-never land making auxillary-irrelevent-unqualified statements, and suggesting that there isn't a player in the world who makes that adjustment well.

This is an inaccurate statement. In any one gap scheme, the defensive player will shade his gap to give him a half a man advantage and to influence the blocking scheme of the offense. For example you would never ask a 3 tech DT in a 4-3 shading strong to have 1 tech gap responsibility, this is physically impossible. If you want him to play two gap then the DT would line up in a 2 technique. Both techniques are polar opposites of one another.

1. Some players may appear successful at the transition from run to pass.

2. Success at transitioning from run to pass is dependent upon the gap scheme played.

3. Comparing one player's overall success at transitioning from run to pass to another player's overall success is, therefore, dependent upon the gap scheme that each player plays in.

4. Bill Parcells and Bill Belicheck do not run the same scheme.

5. Therefore, comparing a Parcells player's overall success at transitioning from run to pass to a Belicheck player's overall success at transitioning is not helpful.

A five year old could follow this argument.

If your point is that Parcells and Belicheck run the same scheme and that I'm not qualified to say that they don't, then surely you see the fallacy in that statement.

If your point is that we already know which players transition from run to pass in a 2-gap assignment better than other players, I'd like to know what qualifies you or anyone else to make that statement.

Let's make it even simpler, and I'll use the original phraseology so we are extremely clear on exactly what we're talking about. I'll pose it in the form of a question - it requires ONLY a "yes" or "no" answer. Please attempt to do so, so that I may respond, and make concessions where I understand the point you are attempting to make. k?

Do you believe that any of our defensive linemen (in aprticular the starting DEs) transition well from run to pass mode?

This is an inaccurate statement. In any one gap scheme, the defensive player will shade his gap to give him a half a man advantage and to influence the blocking scheme of the offense. For example you would never ask a 3 tech DT in a 4-3 shading strong to have 1 tech gap responsibility, this is physically impossible. If you want him to play two gap then the DT would line up in a 2 technique. Both techniques are polar opposites of one another.

Probably shouldn't have said "all". But in almost any system, there will be defensive calls where a defensive linemen will have that 2 gap responsibility. It may rarely occur, but it does occur.

Let's make it even simpler, and I'll use the original phraseology so we are extremely clear on exactly what we're talking about. I'll pose it in the form of a question - it requires ONLY a "yes" or "no" answer. Please attempt to do so, so that I may respond, and make concessions where I understand the point you are attempting to make. k?

Do you believe that any of our defensive linemen (in aprticular the starting DEs) transition well from run to pass mode?

Yes or no, please...

Compared to what? You can't ask, is it hot or cold without context? These are relative statements.

Probably shouldn't have said "all". But in almost any system, there will be defensive calls where a defensive linemen will have that 2 gap responsibility. It may rarely occur, but it does occur.

Even if you would have said some it would have been inaccurate because you are missing the point of two gapping versus one gapping.

By alignment Wade and Belicheck’s systems are a one gap system because it is impossible to play across the OL’s body with any kind of success as I pointed out earlier.

The only time they would give a two gap look is during a blitz or game or stunt. There are very few two gap teams left and imo for three reasons. It is a lot easier to teach one gap technique. The sizes of offensive linemen are enormous and you have to be totally foolhardy to think that a defensive lineman can win a head to head battle for an entire game. The only team running a counter trey offense is garbage. The only real inherit weakness to playing an attacking one gap defense is being susceptible to misdirection counters, traps, etc.
However, the benefit to a one gap system is primarily this. It dictates how the Offenses should block you and if you know how they should block you the pendulum swings in favor of the defense because now you are dictating. Last season we were dictated to which put a great strain on transitioning from playing the run to rushing the passer and moreso coverage responsibilities.

Probably shouldn't have said "all". But in almost any system, there will be defensive calls where a defensive linemen will have that 2 gap responsibility. It may rarely occur, but it does occur.

Jason Ferguson said that when he played under Parcells/Belichik with the Jets... they ran the 2-gap maybe 10 plays a game.

In 2006, every first and 2nd down was pretty much 2 gap assignment for the dlinemen.

This exactly what we are talking about. Having a 2 gap assignment does happen... but its VERY VERY rare in Wade Phillips' scheme (from what I have seen) but it was VERY VERY common with Pacells/Zimmer this past season.

You're trying to make it seem like EVERY player has to control the offensive lineman first then read the play and react... when that is not the case... especially in what the Chargers were doing last season.

You're trying to make it seem like EVERY player has to control the offensive lineman first then read the play and react... when that is not the case... especially in what the Chargers were doing last season.

that's not what I'm trying to do at all, man. You're either good at making that transition or you're not. I can see where you guys are going with the opportunities and scheme things, but that's not the original line of thinking.

If Ware notches 18 sacks next year, is it because he became an infinitely better pass-rusher, or is it because he got more opportunities in a defense that blitzed twice as much as we did last year?

The scheme might make a player look better, because it puts him in a better position to make a highlight play, or gives him more opportunities to make a straightforward play rather than a read and react play, but it's not going to make the players any better at doing a thing. Our defensive linemen made that transition poorly. It is not an impossible situation for them, even though it may not have been ideal. But no amount of blustering changes the fact that they did what was asked of them poorly. The scheme can be criticized to no end - and so can their performance in it.

that's not what I'm trying to do at all, man. You're either good at making that transition or you're not. I can see where you guys are going with the opportunities and scheme things, but that's not the original line of thinking.

If Ware notches 18 sacks next year, is it because he became an infinitely better pass-rusher, or is it because he got more opportunities in a defense that blitzed twice as much as we did last year?

The scheme might make a player look better, because it puts him in a better position to make a highlight play, or gives him more opportunities to make a straightforward play rather than a read and react play, but it's not going to make the players any better at doing a thing. Our defensive linemen made that transition poorly. It is not an impossible situation for them, even though it may not have been ideal. But no amount of blustering changes the fact that they did what was asked of them poorly. The scheme can be criticized to no end - and so can their performance in it.

Our point is that it only appears that our linemen make the transition poorly because of the scheme. Just the same way that it would appear that Ware got better as a pass-rusher. You have to compare their abilities in the exact same scheme. Otherwise the comparison is useless.

Belicheck and Parcells do not have the same scheme, so comparing their players isn't helpful.

Our point is that it only appears that our linemen make the transition poorly because of the scheme. Just the same way that it would appear that Ware got better as a pass-rusher. You have to compare their abilities in the exact same scheme. Otherwise the comparison is useless.

Belicheck and Parcells do not have the same scheme, so comparing their players isn't helpful.

Are New England's DEs better in a 2-gap? Before you answer this, you would have to know (1) when they played a 2-gap assignment, and (2) how well they performed while playing the 2-gap assignment.

They don't play a whole lot of 2-gap. They use it some, but not nearly as extensively as Parcells. So you can't look at New England's DEs overall performance and compare it to Dallas DEs. You can only compare similar scheme to similar scheme.

Unless you possess the knowledge outlined above, there's no way you can say "our guys suck" because you have nothing to compare our guys to.